People focus too much on the unemployed and not enough on the unproductive jobs funded by the taxpayer. It's not actually any more sustainable for the economy to borrow money to employ people to do pointless **** than it is to pay them less money to just stay at home, even if it satisfies the inner victorian to see them getting out of bed to turn up to work for 9am. And there is a lot of non-productive activity in the public budgets of most western economies.

We're into the 3rd or 4th generation of the welfare state. In some households there are 3 generation who have never worked a day in thier lives

Add to this people who work for cash and sign on and there is a sizable proportion of UK and Irish population that are sucking all the life out

The welfare state has also, by unintened consiquence, removed the 'father' figure from the family structure and not replaced it. This has led to all manner of social problems. When familys looked after themselves and neighbors there was way more value placed in Family and neighborhood. Now regardless of how they behave young people learn that the teat of the state is still flowing with milk

this may not be the same here as overseas, but we also get fed a story by the media about the bludgers, 2nd/3rd generation welfare louts. that they are a bane on society etc etc. what they often forget to mention is that in fact, they make up a tiny percentage of those on welfare. people think they are a huge drain because politicians and the media tell them this- but the numbers (at least here in NZ) simply do not stack up. would be interesting to see the numbers for the UK.

People focus too much on the unemployed and not enough on the unproductive jobs funded by the taxpayer. It's not actually any more sustainable for the economy to borrow money to employ people to do pointless **** than it is to pay them less money to just stay at home, even if it satisfies the inner victorian to see them getting out of bed to turn up to work for 9am. And there is a lot of non-productive activity in the public budgets of most western economies.

the gym i work in has 1 manager to every 4 employees and is run by the council. i honestly have no idea what most of those managers -do- or even who they are. what i do know is that the people who actually work at the place- lifeguards, fitness instructors etc, get shafted in terms of having hours cut and dismal pay, while the managers get in at 9am, leave at 2, and do **** all while there except have extended lunch breaks. flagrant waste spending by councils are, ill wager, a fucksight more expensive to the economy than dole bludgers.

this may not be the same here as overseas, but we also get fed a story by the media about the bludgers, 2nd/3rd generation welfare louts. that they are a bane on society etc etc. what they often forget to mention is that in fact, they make up a tiny percentage of those on welfare. people think they are a huge drain because politicians and the media tell them this- but the numbers (at least here in NZ) simply do not stack up. would be interesting to see the numbers for the UK.

There are specific areas of the UK that have had depressed economies reliant on subsidy, public sector make-work and out-of-work benefits for decades (South Wales, the cheaper neighbourhoods of the cities of Northern England, chunks of western Scotland), and in those places it's not too hard to find multigenerational unemployment, but I don't think it's fair to say it's common in the UK as a whole.

Outside of those areas you still meet people who've been on unemployment benefits for years, but they weren't usually raised to think that was normal.

One of our main problems is that our welfare system has kind of built-in 'steps' so that small steps to become self-reliant can suddenly result in massive reductions in overall income. This can be a particularly big deal for unemployed people with children, so that doing things like finding a part-time entry-level job like stacking shelves or delivering pizzas suddenly leaves them poorer than if they'd stayed on welfare, in effect a massive disincentive to get back on their own feet and become self-reliant again. There are always think-tank suggestions and political tinkering to try and fix this, but it never seems to get better.

this may not be the same here as overseas, but we also get fed a story by the media about the bludgers, 2nd/3rd generation welfare louts. that they are a bane on society etc etc. what they often forget to mention is that in fact, they make up a tiny percentage of those on welfare. people think they are a huge drain because politicians and the media tell them this- but the numbers (at least here in NZ) simply do not stack up. would be interesting to see the numbers for the UK.

same here in the UK themoney spent on welfare is tiny compared to lost tax revenue from the tip 1% richest in the UK who don't pay tax due to legal tax evasion. Yet the media only look at the poor on benifits or immigrants and blame them.

The revenue from the top 1% isn't 'lost', they're just refusing to give it to you in the first place. Not giving somebody something, is not the same as taking it from them. Important moral distinction.

Secondly, the top 1% of people even if they apply enormous effort to tax avoidance still tend to pay more in taxation than they cost the state (if they aren't bankers or making most of their income selling something to the government), and more than an employee earning the median wage.

There are specific areas of the UK that have had depressed economies reliant on subsidy, public sector make-work and out-of-work benefits for decades (South Wales, the cheaper neighbourhoods of the cities of Northern England, chunks of western Scotland), and in those places it's not too hard to find multigenerational unemployment, but I don't think it's fair to say it's common in the UK as a whole.

Outside of those areas you still meet people who've been on unemployment benefits for years, but they weren't usually raised to think that was normal.

One of our main problems is that our welfare system has kind of built-in 'steps' so that small steps to become self-reliant can suddenly result in massive reductions in overall income. This can be a particularly big deal for unemployed people with children, so that doing things like finding a part-time entry-level job like stacking shelves or delivering pizzas suddenly leaves them poorer than if they'd stayed on welfare, in effect a massive disincentive to get back on their own feet and become self-reliant again. There are always think-tank suggestions and political tinkering to try and fix this, but it never seems to get better.

Exactly like I was saying about the teen mothers , it pays more to be on benifits than it does to get a part time job which is what they need there isn't enough well paid flexible hours jobs around. But what the answer cut benifits to single mums and see the children suffer or up the minimum wage that struggling business can't afford?